devips
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,233
What Carragher did to Nani. What goes around comes around.
It's just not though is it?I find these statements dotted throughout the thread to be the most challenging. You can 'accidently on purpose' have a 50:50 nonchalance to whether you take someone out or not. If nothing happens to that person, oh well and if something does happen, then you were only going for the ball.. knee high, full weight, scissor-spread.
Throwing yourself in their general direction like that is a malicious act - you're going for the ball, but you're also going to take out anything in your path. If it was an honest tackle, with no scissors, at ankle or foot level, that's a hard, no-nonsense, good old-fashioned statement; if it's calf or above, you're not doing that by accident.
Pickford probably didn't mean to smash VVD, but he didn't go in in a way that would avoid it, either, particularly once his own legs were above a certain height.
That's like fighting with your hands open and gouging - you didn't necessarily mean for it to happen, but if you get a good eyeful of someone in that manner, it is, by no means, an unexpected outcome. A secondary intention, if you will.
Wonder how goalkeepers so far have managed to make themselves "big" without needing to go in stud first into someone's leg that high. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether or not Pickford went into that challenge wanting to hurt VVD, the simple fact is that a challenge like that is going to cause a serious injury almost every time unless the other player has high leg in the air. People dismissing it as nothing blah blah but I wonder how different the reactions would be if Pickford did that to one of our guys. Ridiculous..The calls for Pickford to get a huge ban are serious over reactions. There was clearly no intent from him. It was just a stupid attempt at making himself big to block any kind of attempt at goal. It was wreckless in hindsight but nothing more than that.
The truth is if VVD continued playing without needing to come off, this would no longer be discussed. The fact that VVD is out for a significant amount of time is the only reason it is being looked at in greater detail.
He didn't go studs first.Wonder how goalkeepers so far have managed to make themselves "big" without needing to go in stud first into someone's leg that high. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether or not Pickford went into that challenge wanting to hurt VVD, the simple fact is that a challenge like that is going to cause a serious injury almost every time unless the other player has high leg in the air. People dismissing it as nothing blah blah but I wonder how different the reactions would be if Pickford did that to one of our guys. Ridiculous..
He did jump into VVD is the only fact we know. Only Pickford knows what his intent was and that's fine because it means jackshit. Intent or not, it was a mental challenge and very reckless. He's lucky the FA are simply inept.It's just not though is it?
Pickford is throwing his body in the way to block the ball, lots of goalkeepers use the star fish technique to spread themselves and block a shot.
The issue is he went running towards VVD and his forward momentum while jumping took him into him.
You have to ask yourself did he purposely jump into him trying to hurt him, or did he make a bad judgement? for me it was clear what he was attempting to do and made a complete hash of it. If you're going to hurt somebody you'd also go studs forward, not wrap your legs around him like an octopus. It was just out of control but not malicious.
for me Richarlisons tackle on Thiago was 1000x worse - now that was frustration and intent to hurt.
The point remains the same regardlessHe didn't go studs first.
i'm not sure what you're arguing? I said it's a bad challenge, but not intented to hurt. He deserves a red card but to say he went to do VVD is incorrect IMO.He did jump into VVD is the only fact we know. Only Pickford knows what his intent was and that's fine because it means jackshit. Intent or not, it was a mental challenge and very reckless. He's lucky the FA are simply inept.
Not a great example as VvD isn’t Carragher. I suppose you could bring up his tackle on Mertens instead, when he said it wasn’t even a bad tackle. Still though, wish him a good, quick recovery.What Carragher did to Nani. What goes around comes around.
Just read your post above. My bad. I don't really care about intention when it comes to this and misunderstood your post to mean no intent = no punishment.i'm not sure what you're arguing? I said it's a bad challenge, but not intented to hurt. He deserves a red card but to say he went to do VVD is incorrect IMO.
Like I said before: it's very easy to go for the ball and through a man at the same time. It's an outlawed technique as far as defenders go - the scissors - particularly leaving your own trailing leg behind yourself in line with the opponents standing leg. Of course, primarily you won the ball, and in the old days, it didn't matter what damage the rest of you did to the rest of the opponent; ostensibly, the ball was won and that's that.It's just not though is it?
Pickford is throwing his body in the way to block the ball, lots of goalkeepers use the star fish technique to spread themselves and block a shot.
The issue is he went running towards VVD and his forward momentum while jumping took him into him.
You have to ask yourself did he purposely jump into him trying to hurt him, or did he make a bad judgement? for me it was clear what he was attempting to do and made a complete hash of it. If you're going to hurt somebody you'd also go studs forward, not wrap your legs around him like an octopus. It was just out of control but not malicious.
for me Richarlisons tackle on Thiago was 1000x worse - now that was frustration and intent to hurt.
This is where you're getting confused though. you're comparing Pickfords attempt to block the ball to an actual tackle.Like I said before: it's very easy to go for the ball and through a man at the same time. It's an outlawed technique as far as defenders go - the scissors - particularly leaving your own trailing leg behind yourself in line with the opponents standing leg. Of course, primarily you won the ball, and in the old days, it didn't matter what damage the rest of you did to the rest of the opponent; ostensibly, the ball was won and that's that.
There's a reason that was outlawed and it's the odd keeper you see doing it now, and even then, at lower height for point of connection than Pickford.
Claiming no intent when someone goes in like that is naive at worst and serious benefit of the doubt at best.
I can run through a plethora of ways to win the ball and leave your man in a heap with 'no intent' or at least as a by-product of winning the ball. It really doesn't matter whether he set out to do him or whether it was a totally obvious accident waiting to happen as a result of whatever you want to call him.
Btw, even whiffing that kind of action completely and not touching your man is a red card these days, but not for keepers, just that the propensity for them to do what Pickford has form for is very low.
Richarlson's action was punished on the spot, which is why it's not a talking point in the same manner.
It's a shambles and a rod for their own back that no action has been taken; at the very least Pickford better keep his nose clean for the remainder of the season. At least our players should be safe, if nothing else.
That's going to go down well this afternoon.Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford will not face retrospective action over his challenge on Virgil van Dijk in Saturday's Merseyside derby.
The FA determined the incident was seen at the time having consulted with the match officials, including VAR.
As expected.
To be fair those are the rules. Stubborn and silly rules but they apply to everyone and hence should do so here as well.Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford will not face retrospective action over his challenge on Virgil van Dijk in Saturday's Merseyside derby.
The FA determined the incident was seen at the time having consulted with the match officials, including VAR.
As expected.
Devastating news for Liverpool and Everton.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think the ref made a mistake to be honest. As it was offside he deemed it not necessary to look at the incident.Aren't retrospective actions only taken on incidents off the ball?
Anyway, the big question to me is not VAR but why didn't the ref call it right away? Looks like he's positioned well enough and he's looking at the incident. How did he miss that?
He wouldn't look at the incident on the VAR monitor unless the VAR panel would advise him to. But it just looks like me he shies away from a decision there. After all he is the ref and he must call on that.I think the ref made a mistake to be honest. As it was offside he deemed it not necessary to look at the incident.
Yeah I think that's probably right. Had it been while the ball was in play we'd see a very different outcome. Definitely a mistake and not ideal to see someone put in that tackle and get away with it, but those are them rules.I think the ref made a mistake to be honest. As it was offside he deemed it not necessary to look at the incident.
This is what I've though, banning Pickford wouldn't be a punishment for Everton. He's absolute dog shite anyway.Devastating news for Liverpool and Everton.
Are you forgetting that Phil Jones plays for us?I think United should refuse to play against Everton unless this thug is permanently banned. We could face horrendous injuries, or even worse death, playing that absolutely reckless unit.
I think what's happening is that refs are shifting the responsibility to the VAR panel and avoiding difficult decisions. Which of course means worse refereeing.Why would anyone be surprised, not allowed to re referee games they obviously saw the tackle.
Just gross incompetence by the referee and VAR. Nothing changed since last year and it won't until the management of the referees is changed.
I think we should offer to let him play against us every week, for rehabilitation purposes.I think United should refuse to play against Everton unless this thug is permanently banned. We could face horrendous injuries, or even worse death, playing that absolutely reckless unit.
Poor Phil would only cower in fear if approached by the muscled arms of Pickford.Are you forgetting that Phil Jones plays for us?
Would still end up hurting himself whilst cowering and miss the next few months no doubt .Poor Phil would only cower in fear if approached by the muscled arms of Pickford.
VAR is good. It just needs slightly better utilisation. It has corrected many a bad decision already which people don't like to focus on. Maybe we need to put less power in the hands of the referees and more in that of the manager/staff - appeal system as in cricket and tennis.I think what's happening is that refs are shifting the responsibility to the VAR panel and avoiding difficult decisions. Which of course means worse refereeing.
VAR should be scrapped.
He sounds mental.
please like, share and subscribe ..